ArticleResearch integrity and peer review2025
Reporting of measures against bias in nonclinical published research studies: a journal-based comparison.
Article in Research integrity and peer review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHistorically, systematic review studies of nonclinical published research articles around the life sciences have shown that the overall reporting of information on measures against bias is low. Measures such as randomization, blinding and sample size estimation are mentioned in the minority of the studies. The present study aims to provide an overview of the recent reporting standards in a large sample of nonclinical articles with focus on statistical information.
methodsJournals were randomly selected from Journal Citation Reports (Clarivate). Biomedical research articles published in 2020 from 10 journals were analyzed for their reporting standards using a checklist.
resultsIn total 860 articles; 320 articles describing in vivo methods, 187 articles describing in vitro methods and 353 articles including both in vivo and in vitro methods, were included in the study. The reporting rate of "randomization" ranged from 0%-63% between journals for in vivo articles and 0%-4% for in vitro articles. The reporting rate of "blinded conduct of the experiments" ranged from 11%-71% between journals for in vivo articles and 0%-86% for in vitro articles.
conclusionThe analysis showed that the reporting standards remained low, also when other statistical information is concerned. Additionally, our results suggest that the reporting in articles on in vivo experiments is better compared to articles on in vitro experiments. Furthermore, important differences in reporting standards between journals seem to exist.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.